On 11/26/2014 10:02 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:49:47AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
If tracer modifies a syscall number to -1, this traced system call should
be skipped with a return value specified in x0.
This patch implements this semantics.

Please note:
* syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and
   audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call
   (that is, -1).
   In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry()
   might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call
   being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry().

Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
---
  arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S |   10 +++++++++-
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index 726b910..946ec52 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -161,6 +161,7 @@
   */
  sc_nr .req    x25             // number of system calls
  scno  .req    x26             // syscall number
+scno_w .req    w26             // syscall number (lower 32 bits)
  stbl  .req    x27             // syscall table pointer
  tsk   .req    x28             // current thread_info

@@ -668,8 +669,14 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc)
         * switches, and waiting for our parent to respond.
         */
  __sys_trace:
-       mov     x0, sp
+       cmp     scno_w, #-1                     // set default errno for

I hate that we have to use scno_w, but the only alternative I can think of
is using w8 directly, which isn't any better and doesn't work for compat.
Ho-hum, I guess we'll stick with what you have.

The possible approaches might be:
* use 32-bit registers for scno & sc_nr and use "sxtw scno, w8," or
* use an extra reg like
    __sys_trace:
        mov x0, #0xffffffff
        cmp scno, x0
        b.ne 1f

+       b.ne    1f                              // user-issued syscall(-1)
+       mov     x0, #-ENOSYS
+       str     x0, [sp]

Can you use #S_X0 here for clarity, please?

Okey.

+1:     mov     x0, sp
        bl      syscall_trace_enter
+       cmp     w0, #-1                         // skip the syscall?
+       b.eq    __sys_trace_return_skipped
        adr     lr, __sys_trace_return          // return address
        uxtw    scno, w0                        // syscall number (possibly new)
        mov     x1, sp                          // pointer to regs
@@ -684,6 +691,7 @@ __sys_trace:

  __sys_trace_return:
        str     x0, [sp]                        // save returned x0

and update this guy too.

Sure.

-Takahiro AKASHI

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to